Israel to Pay $10-Million for UN Gaza War Assault, First Chink in Impunity

For the first time since the Gaza war Israel has been forced to accept culpability for one of its heinous acts of destruction against the civilian population. The Times of London reports that Israel’s shelling a year ago of the UN’s major food distribution facility with white phosphorus, thereby setting it on fire and destroying it, has resulted in an agreement for the country to pay the international body $10-million for the massive devastation that resulted.

There are two ways of looking at this: it can be seen as the first chink in the armor of Israeli impunity regarding its crimes in Gaza; the first time it has agreed to make monetary compensation for its acts. On the other hand, UN aid workers in Gaza are furious and believe their leaders in New York have sold them out considering both the ultimate value of the destroyed warehouse and the magnitude of Israel’s havoc:

…Local staff said they were outraged.

“Israel cannot think that it will buy us this cheaply,” said one, speaking anonymously because he did not have permission to comment on the agreement.

As any decent lawyer would, Israel refused to concede any precedent to its compensation:

Israeli officials emphasised that it would not set a precedent.“This is a special agreement, reached on this particular issue, it carries no legal ramifications,” said an Israeli defence official, describing the payment as a “goodwill gesture”.

All of which is preposterous. Though it may not carry “legal” ramifications it certain carries moral ones and does set a precedent. This is the first hole in the dyke of Israeli impunity through which sea water will eventually stream freely.

At first, Israel claimed the shelling was justified because militants were in the compound. Then they were around the compound. Now Israel concedes it made a mistake though it still maintains there were militants in the area. All of the UNWRA denies vehemently. In fact, the UN spokesperson essentially accused Israel of making the story up.

I believe that Israeli deliberately destroyed the warehouse as part of its scorched earth strategy to leave nothing of any worth standing. It figured it would deal with any the collateral damage to its reputation at a later date. Now the chickens have begun coming home to roost.

The destruction of a major piece of Gaza infrastructure which served a purely civilian, humanitarian purpose surely would’ve served as the underpinning of any international war crimes tribunal. So perhaps Israel sees this as a way of buying out of that charge cheaply. It will now be able to say if the issue does come up that it resolved it to the UN’s satisfaction. I don’t think this will work, but you have to hand it to the Israelis–they can be crafty and shrewd in a devious sort of way.

Despite this calculation, I believe that this is the equivalent of the first lawsuits against tobacco companies by lung cancer victims. At first, they won them all. Then they lost one. Then another. And even if they didn’t lose as much as the profit they harvested from smokers, they were forced to spend gargantuan sums defending these suits. Now, Americans know the truth and the moral victory is on the victims’ side. The same will hold true in the case of Israel’s crimes in the Gaza war and elsewhere. They will eventually be found culpable. There will be no perpetual impunity.

In a separate incident, Israel killed 40 civilians seeking shelter in the UN school at Jabaliya. Israel hasn’t seen fit to offer anything for the lives it took there.

Let’s short-circuit some nattering nabobs who will take issue with my reliance on this story from a newspaper I recently excoriated for its acceptance of a forged Iranian document as proof Iran was seeking to weaponize its WMD. I would note that Sheera Frenkel, the Times reporter who wrote this story, is excellent. The same cannot be said for Oliver Kamm and the other reporters involved in the Iran fraud.

As you said, Richard, it’s not enough but it’s a start. It shows that Israel is feeling the pinch resultant of its unraveling public image and is beginning to understand that despite its efforts to bury the Goldstone Report and other reports by NGO’s and human rights organizations, those reports are now part of mainstream consciousness. $10 million is indeed a drop in the bucket, unfortunately, and it is especially sad when one recalls that billions of dollars in reconstruction and humanitarian aid are still being withheld from Gaza.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 7:49 AM

Shirin

“I believe that Israeli deliberately destroyed the warehouse as part of its scorched earth strategy to leave nothing of any worth standing.”

I am absolutely convinced of it. This would hardly be the first such instance, or even necessarily the most brazen. And, as always, we have their ever-shifting stories ranging from “we had to do it, teghghoghists were using it as a base and attacking us from there”, to “Ooooops, we made a mistake – oh well”, and everything in between.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 10:26 AM

mary

They always place the blame on anyone or anything other than themselves. On the one hand, they say their military equipment is state of the art and can pinpoint a target with absolute accuracy. On the other hand, somehow when a school is blown up, or a warehouse, or a group of children playing in a courtyard, then it’s impossible to isolate targets from civilians who are “nearby”, or there were boogeymen hiding in or around or under or near said warehouse or school, and what really floors me is that they think it’s OK to bomb ambulances and hospitals because they claim there are Hamas members inside them. In other words, they will deliberately kill scores of innocent civilians just to kill one Hamas member. This is an outrage.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 12:17 PM

editorsteve

It is an outrage, but I think it is important not to get sidetracked on weapons technology. Some weapons can be aimed very accurately, some can’t, and there’s really no contradiction. But it DOESN’T MATTER!!! This argument deflects from the real issue.

The issue is much more simple: If the “bad guys” — the combatants — hide behind civilians, and the bad guys are not an imminent threat to the guy in the tank, it is a violation of international law to go after the bad guys NO MATTER HOW ACCURATE THE WEAPON unless you have a magic Star Wars blaster that can kill only the bad guy.

Likewise, Goldstone says Hamas sending inaccurate rockets into settlements is also a serious violation of international law for the same reason. Even if it can be claimed that some of the settlement is military and some of the inhabitants are soldiers (this is the Hamas excuse, when they bother to excuse at all), the rockets are so inaccurate that civilians are put in danger unnecessarily.

Was it deliberate Israel policy to kill civilians and destroy civilian facilities in Gaza, or just poor leadership and training at IDF? Goldstone says that is a matter for the courts to decide.

I note of course, that Israel did indeed deliberately bomb civilian infrastructure in Lebanon — bridges, powerplants and so forth.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 5:54 PM

mary

Goldstone did not find a single instance where it was established that Hamas fighters hid among civilians. However, it was established that the IDF used civilians as human shields. It was also established that the IDF deliberately targeted ambulances and medical workers.

Weapons that cannot be aimed accurately should not be used in civilian areas. Period. There is no “if” when it comes to the Geneva Conventions in this regard. There is ample evidence that Israel used white phosphorus in civilian areas, in fact. It also used flechettes in those areas. Both are in violation of international laws.

Hamas’ rockets are probably not meant as battle weaponry as much as symbolic resistance, however, they are still in violation of the laws. It is worth noting that they did not kill anywhere near the numbers of people that Israel has killed.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 6:06 PM

editorsteve

I happen to agree with the Goldstone report but there are two problems with the argument:

1. He’s a prosecutor, laying out the evidence. He doesn’t “prove” anything. That’s for a court to decide. He makes a damn good case. But it has to go to court. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.

2. I happen to agree on civilian shield not really done by Hamas in cases Goldstone investigated, but again it has to be proven in court. My key point is that it doesn’t really matter — even if Hamas WAS using civilians as shields, IDF forces can’t go after Hamas fighters unless directly threatened themselves. The burden of proof is on IDF.

Basically, my line of reasoning removes an entire layer of defense of these actions. Why does that make me an apologist?

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 7:16 PM

mary

Steve, Goldstone is not a prosecutor. He is an investigator, and he made a report of his investigation and his findings, among which was a conclusion that it appeared the IDF deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, a flour mill, and private homes and mosques. There was also a conclusion indicating that it appeared white phosphorus was used carelessly and inappropriately in civilian areas.

As you know, it does not matter whether these acts were deliberate or not, however, they appear to be so. Israel would not cooperate in the investigation, but we can assume that the military is well schooled in proper military conduct and is aware of its obligations to protect civilians. It appears that Israel did not follow the laws which resulted in a large number of civilian deaths and terrible injuries.

If Goldstone’s report were the sole source of these allegations I would say it is for a court of law to decide, but the report supports and expounds on previous findings made by Human Rights Watch, BT’Selem, Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Physicians Without Borders.

There is no evidence that Hamas used civilians as human shields, therefore, there is no issue to present to a court. On the other hand, there is evidence that the IDF did use civilians this way. The IDF used civilians to check buildings for bombs and hidden Hamas fighters.

You are correct in saying that the enemy cannot be engaged in a civilian area unless they provoke a fight. There is ample testimony that this rule of engagement also was not followed by the IDF. The issue of human shields is superfluous.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 7:45 PM

Shirin

Steve, you need to hone your line a bit better. You always manage one way or another to reveal your true role of Israel-apologist-thinly-disguised-as-even-handed-observer by throwing in just enough bits of standard hasbara rubbish to give yourself away.

I’ll leave it to you to figure out where you slipped up this time. It’s not my job to help you get better at your job.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 6:12 PM

mary

He was doing so well up until…..

He asked a question and gave an incorrect answer.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 6:49 PM

editorsteve

Come on… just admit that two wrongs don’t make a right. No one has the time to correct all your mistakes.

BTW, I happen to believe that use of white phosphorus is barbaric but it is NOT always a violation of international law. Wish it were. It’s allowed against military targets and for use as a smoke screen. Shouldn’t be, but it is. (There are separate lists for banned conventional weapons and chemical weapons, and a specific ban in the Geneva Conventions for use as a weapon in civilian areas, which is good enough for me, but IDF and the US and Russians, etc always seem to find their own bullshit loopholes.)

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 6:58 PM

mary

Steve, I said “white phosphorus in civilian areas.” It is clearly and unambiguously a violation of humanitarian law.

“Was it deliberate Israel policy to kill civilians and destroy civilian facilities in Gaza, or just poor leadership and training at IDF? Goldstone says that is a matter for the courts to decide.”

YOu’re right there. Steve didn’t get that right. But it should also be said that Goldstone does concede that his Report needs to be tested in a court of law & perhaps that is what Steve meant to say.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 1:02 AM

editorsteve

Exactly — he was prosecutor for the Yugoslav Tribunal (the prototype for the ICC) and has repeatedly said that he was investigating. The UN would issue the indictment and the courts would try.

I’ve seen up close (in Uganda) what white phosphorus can do, and it should be banned, period. But it is not banned under all circumstances. Reading testimony over the years, I realize that people are not prosecuted for supposed “ammunition malfunctions” that spray civilians (or combatants, in fact) with the stuff. The “we were just putting down a smokescreen or sending up a flare” excuse is common.

See, if there were no loophole, the manufacture of the stuff would also be illegal and arms dealers would stay away. The stuff doesn’t disappear because it is easy to make by amateurs. But the use would decline drastically.

Richard, I would describe my commentary over the past year not as knee-jerk pro-Israel, but as knee-jerk “leave civilians out of it.”

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 7:18 AM

Shirin

“I would describe my commentary over the past year not as knee-jerk pro-Israel, but as knee-jerk “leave civilians out of it.””

And yet you regularly reveal your true position by tucking word-for-word standard hasbara talking points neatly into your commentary over and over again. There is a particularly blatant example right here on this page.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 9:36 AM

Donald

I don’t know Steve’s politics or motives, but most of what Steve said in this thread seemed pretty reasonable and in the area of conceding Israeli misdeeds he went far beyond any hasbarist I’ve seen. What he said about the laws of warfare, barbaric actions, and loopholes sounds a lot like what Chomsky has said (I’m thinking of a book review of Guenter Lewy’s “America in Vietnam” that was reprinted in “Towards a New Cold War”). Hasbarists don’t usually say that Israeli actions were barbaric. In fact, I’ve never seen that–it’s a new ultra-subtle form of hasbara when your line of defense is “Israel’s actions are barbaric, but there may be legal loopholes that will keep their leaders out of jail.”

Assuming there is some happy day when the Israelis are brought to court for using white phosphorus, I’m sure they’ll probably say they were using it legally as a smokescreen. It’s utter BS and I hope a judge would see it as such, but that’s a loophole they’d try to exploit.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 10:33 AM

Shirin

“I don’t know Steve’s politics or motives…”

I don’t know his motives. Only he knows those. However, he makes his pro-Israel bias very, very clear by the way he, probably unconsciously, sprinkles standard-issue hasbara points throughout his comments.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 10:53 AM

mary

Shirin is right. Steve’s comments are full of a “yes, but” slant that leans towards criticism of Israel, then pulls back with qualifiers. The white phosphorus issue is an example, wherein he says words to the effect that Israel used white phosphorus in harmful ways, but the law says it’s not illegal to do that, and of course it should all be decided in a court of law. As if the many, many devastating photos of white phosphorus victims (children, women among them), the statements of UN employees and civilian eyewitnesses, and the testimony of IDF soldiers are not enough for him to have an opinion of his own. And of course he cannot acknowledge the clear testimony and other evidence indicating that the IDF’s use of white phosphorus in civilian areas was deliberate. The stuff was dumped on a UN school, clearly a civilian area, and clearly illegally.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 11:03 AM

editorsteve

I thought I was very clear but let me try again. As long as soldiers can claim they were using phosphorus only for smokescreen and illumination (and they often can, because the shells for that purpose are different from shells meant specifically for aiming at actual targets) they skip through the loophole. It’s wrong. The loophole is long recognized but remains unclosed. As far as I know, armies have beet getting away with this pretty uniformly for decades.

With certainty I can say that Israel’s (and our use for that matter) is barbaric, but only a court can rule it is a violation of international rules of war.

Goldstone’s team concentrated on 8 serious incidents. Israel, of course, refused to cooperate.. and then complained the reports were one-sided. It has to go to court. And judging by previous prosecutions at the Yugoslav tribunal, the evidence and the testimony would be exhaustive — and exhausting. The tendency is to “go up the chain of command” too. Good.

But I do not like to throw around phrases like “violation of international law” and “proven” until it is proven. Until then, I prefer to just say such actions are immoral, wrong.

I also tried to generalize. We don’t NEED to show hiding behind civilians or prove that any combatants who were or were not hiding were threatening the IDF. We only have to show that civilians were killed or maimed or that weapons or “devices that were used like weapons even if they are not supposed to be,” like phosphorus flares) were aimed in civilians’ direction.

So why go the step beyond? That’s where the other side can argue. They can’tg argue on the morality.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 11:37 AM

Shirin

Steve, you remind me of an old Israeli whom I used to debate. He continuously insisted that Israel had never violated the Fourth Geneva Convention because a court of law had never tried it for that and found it in violation. To call that a piss poor argument is an understatement. It is like arguing that the person or persons who a few years ago broke the window of my car, hotwired it, drove it around for a few days, then abandoned it on the other side of town in trashed condition with all its contents missing did not commit a theft because he never got caught and therefore was never tried.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 12:01 PM

Donald

Well, it’d be a giant step forward in the American discussion if we had the Israel defenders making the sorts of points Steve makes. “Israel’s actions were barbaric and immoral, but we’d need to see what happens in a court of law before pronouncing them illegal.” I think they’d be called illegal in a reasonable court (but have to admit as a non-lawyer I’m not 100 percent sure what a court would do). But getting Israel defenders to admit to “barbaric and immoral” is 90 percent of the battle, IMO.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 12:10 PM

Donald

My quote is a paraphrase, of course, though I think a fair one of Steve’s views (he can correct me if I’m wrong).

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 12:11 PM

editorsteve

Fair enough, Donald. I’m not an Israel defender, nor a Hamas defender for that matter. I don’t like violence, especially against civilians. I don’t like fanatics, especially religious fanatics, of any stripe. I find it amusing to be accused of channeling Hasbara. People who know me would find that to be a bizarre accusation. If I channel anyone it is Ray Habiby (emeritus prof of international law), his famous peace activist late brother Emil (who was a Palestinian member of the Knesset), and his nephew (who resigned from the PA over Fatah agreeing to bury the Goldstone report). I did the first press training for the judges of the ICC (14 of the 18 were in my class at the Hague) and believe deeply in rule of law. But I do (occasionally) go to temple and end up arguing with many co-religionists. THEY NEVER GET PAST THE ACCUSATIONS of violation of international law and they start arguing that. I point out that the law is the barest level of civility. BUT I REALLY WANT TO SPEND TIME ARGUING THE MEAT OF THE ISSUE and not whether (for example) white phosphorus is “illegal.” I argue that it is, and as I have said, certainly barbaric, but I have to admit to the people I’m arguing with that no combatant has even been internationally prosecuted (much less convicted!) for misuse of white phosphorus, as if that makes it right. We spend so much time on things like that, that we forget what is most important. That’s my message. Yes, the other side is picky. Why give them something to pick on? Another example (one I discussed at length in direct emails with our generous discussion group host, and we disagreed on it): Why did Human Rights Watch calculate in its tally of 1400 combat-related deaths that only about 100 Gaza residents died of natural causes in the three weeks of the fighting when normally at least 300 would have died of natural causes in that period? IDF says 1200 died in those three weeks due to the fighting, 400 civilians rather than 600. I don’t want to spend precious time arguing the extra 200 or whether HRW or IDF is biased due to the questionable numbers. I don’t even know if HRW or IDF was right or wrong in the final tally. (I know people on this list assume HRW is always accurate… and I believe it usually is… but does this make me an apologist?) I want to argue that the 400 on which IDF and HRW both agree is worthy of being investigated exhaustively and prosecuted as a war crime. GET GOING. INVESTIGATE. (My temple is near Columbia’s School of Public Health so these kinds of things get argued that way, by people who have statistical and epidemiology training. Sorry.) Does this make me an apologist channeling Hasbara? The case against Israel in Gaza (and heaven knows, plenty of other places and plenty of other issues) is strong enough without overstating it, or stating what should be obvious but is not completely relevant. Mary and Shirin perhaps don’t get out much… you folks are preaching to the converted. My perhaps cheeky advice is that if you want to convert others, don’t overstate. NOT because you’re wrong on the morality, NOT because your facts are necessarily wrong, not even because it turns off some possible supporters, but because it obscures the easily provable barbarism. Look at how much time we’ve spent discussing white phosphorus when we all agree its use against people is wrong. It’s just not the core of the… Read more »

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 7:38 AM

mary

Steve, perhaps we do preach to the converted a bit, but believe me, I have debated many right-winger Zionist Israelis and Americans many, many times, and it is also true that in many cases, being blunt is the only way to get their attention. I do not think Shirin or I overstated anything in this thread or anywhere else. And I assure you that both of us “get out” quite a bit.

I do agree with you that the discussions rarely delve into anything beyond the surface. The same arguments recur endlessly until people on both sides of a given issue are reciting the same old talking points by rote. This is one of the more interesting effects of hasbara, or propaganda – where discourse is reduced to a mere exchange of “talking points” or tired anecdotes.

What is interesting about the white phosphorus issue in particular is that it, if you will excuse the expression, illuminates the issue of how international law is acknowledged yet is not followed. I worked in the legal field for many years, and generally as a government employee in related areas, and I can tell you from my own experience that there are many laws that are not followed and are not enforced, and also many that were passed as a way to gain political support and appease taxpayers nervous about a particular issue (the sex offender registration laws come to mind, but I digress). I actually think what people are trying to say when they object to the violations of international law by Israel is that they just don’t bloody understand how these people can be such inhuman bastards. And the nerve to claim to be a civilized country and yet flout the laws that ostensibly govern us and are meant to protect us from each other when we are at our worst – when we are at war. The question is actually one of the morality of our world, not merely the legality of our actions.

You bring up the next question that begs to be asked, that is, why the hell isn’t something being done, why is the mechanism so complicated that a country can sidestep having to account for its failure to abide by these laws? And to sidestep being held morally accountable as well? What the hell is wrong with us, that we have deliberately created a system that in effect, allows criminals to escape prosecution for their crimes?

Was I the only one choking with rage when Tzipi Livni had the chutzpah to tell the British government that it should change its laws regarding the issuance of warrants against war criminals such as herself? Or should I say, “alleged” war criminals? In her case, I guess it made no difference, at least not in the UK.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 8:00 AM

editorsteve

Good reply. Why indeed? But I confess to sitting in on many “preparatory conferences” for UN gatherings (as a journalist). Commas are evil. Once you see the sausage being made, you eat less of it.

Remember, the ICC cannot take many cases. It depends on forcing local courts to do the heavy lifting, under threat of those warrants, etc. I’d of course like Obama to spend some political capital getting the US to ratify the Rome Statute but I’ll wait a bit — too much else on the table right now.

A former student of mine, Andrew Cooper, is to my mind a good model. His original landmine report (funded by Lady Di) and follow-on work at HRW and his books are persuasive, I think, because he dispassionately shows the continuing damage to innocents, especially to children, and the economic forces at work against signing a treaty (the vendors of the landmine components and so forth) without dwelling on peripheral issues (were the mines laid by “good” guys???) that could be argued to obscure the key thrust of his arguments.

Less than 18 months after the first report, an international protocol and a Nobel Peace Prize were on the table.

We still have landmines, of course (the US and the Chinese as well as clandestine revolutionaries love them) but deployment has been more restrained, big-power technology has changed (self-disarming) and one can see the beginning of what will be a long endgame. In our lifetime, I think mines maiming children will become quite rare. And, I think, the treaty will be tightened further.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 8:30 AM

mary

I am happy to learn that there is progress being made in the use of land mines; it is a breakthrough in the protection of innocent people. But I still wonder, why do we have to force governments to protect their innocent people? They don’t seem to be inclined to do so until they are pressured in various ways, for extensive lengths of time, and meanwhile, people still die or are maimed.

The biggest issue of Palestine, in my opinion, is this: The public at large (in the west) receives little accurate information from the press on what is happening there. Our job as activists is at least partially to provide that information and to pressure the news media, and our governments, to deal fairly with this subject. I think that many discussions involve the same old round-and-round concerning whether this or that is illegal, simply because so many people respond on this level. Taxpayers tend to hate it when they hear that someone is violating the law. Laws are supposedly unambiguous, whereas moral issues contain many shades of gray. Hearing about violations of law, people tend to get pissed off and they will take action, asking their representatives why the hell isn’t something being done about it. It is ironic that American citizens ask this question about Israel when the answer is quite clear – that the US always blocks any UN proposal to impose any penalty on Israel for its misdeeds. Again, here is my point about governments not abiding by the very laws they claim they support.

As for Obama, his priorities are completely screwed up. People die every day while he appeases big business and the banking industry. The Rome Statute needs to be addressed right now. I suspect the stalling on this has a heck of a lot to do with Israel and Goldstone.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 9:02 AM

editorsteve

Nice thoughts.

I do tend to blame the Republicans (and not Obama) for lack of most social progress.

I do like what George Mitchell is doing. At base, what US diplomacy has now signed on to is the idea that no matter what “facts on the ground” you create, and no matter how you feel about negotiating from a position of weakness or strength, the only lasting peace is a just peace. The press follows Mitchell’s comings and goings, but for the first time, there’s a dedicated staff always in the Middle East to push and probe. Some people on all sides find him to be an irritant. Good. Deep-sixing the Goldstone report? Bad.

I’ve always felt that laws are more ambiguous than moral issues. The Bible says “thou shalt not steal.” The laws have multiple degrees of petty, grand, punishment for the lookouts, and so forth. Even 1000 years ago, Crusaders putting entire populations of cities to death was considered cruel in many circles. Massacres at Acre and Jerusalem echo to this day.

On the other hand: Argued with a rabbi (!) a few months back. He trots out the “hiding among civilians” line. This was before Goldstone report draft was available, but I said it doesn’t matter. International law does not allow attacking the combatant hiding among civilians unless the combatant imminently and directly threatens the attacker. He didn’t know. But as he thought it through, he admitted that this is a moral approach as well.

And, grey areas are OK to explore in court, if it gets to court. Here’s one I covered in Bosnia: Normally, civilians with guns are presumed to be combatants. But folks out hunting in the countryside (as they often were in Bosnia, because food was not easy to get) are an exception. This is actually written into Geneva protocols. Grey.

So what happens when a Bosnian guy is out hunting (birding), in a known hunting area, alone, with a clearly recognized shotgun (not a rifle), far from any military target, and he gets shot and badly wounded by a Serb sniper? He’s now disabled. It went to court locally after the Dayton Accords, and the sniper went to jail. A LOT of testimony on both sides (more than a week as I remember) to sort out what could be described as just a misunderstanding unless you look closely at the facts.

On the other hand… local courts had really been unwilling to nail the top guys. That’s where the Yugoslav Tribunal came in.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 10:36 AM

Shirin

“As for Obama, his priorities are completely screwed up. People die every day”

Obama is no less an imperial president than were George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and all the other imperial presidents, both Republican and Democrat, who came before them. As for people dying every day, Obama was almost certainly responsible for more civilian deaths in his first year in office than George W. Bush was in his first year. My god, one of the very first actions Obama took within hours of taking the oath of office was to sign off on a series of bombings in Pakistan that resulted in the deaths of tens of civilians, including more than a few children.

Right after the 2008 election my dear old friend Majdi in Gaza City said to me “Obama will not help us, but I am glad he was elected because he will be better for America and Americans”.

Plus ca “change” plus c’est la meme chose.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 11:33 AM

mary

This is what people tend not to understand; they will not let go of the Obama as Savior meme, and recognize that he is not much different is his policies as George W Bush. Shirin, you are right once again in pointing out Obama’s homicidal procilivities as they pertain to all foreign conflicts. Why on earth would anyone think this man stands for change when he made his intentions clear during his campaign, that he would ramp up the military aggression against the Afghan people?

Steve, you have cited Obama’s efforts in the matter of Palestine as being sincere. I beg to differ. Obama arrogantly misjudged the obstinacy of Bibi Netanyahu and the complexity of the whole conflict. I think he believed that he could tell Netanyahu “who the f*ck does he think he is” and he underestimated the strength of the congress and the influence of AIPAC, whom he seduced in order to obtain what he needed to get elected. You sleep with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Bush signed off on a bill giving money to Egypt to construct the underground steel wall at the Rafah crossing, just hours before he left office. Obama did not stop this, nor did he raise a finger or speak a word when Israel attacked Gaza last winter. IMHO, he is worthless, no less so than any other politician. Shirin’s friend is wrong; Obama will not help anyone at all. And I am very bitter about this.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 1:59 PM

Shirin

Mary, my expectations of Obama were so low that I really did not think he could disappoint me, yet he has managed to do so.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 4:01 PM

mary

Miw too. The only good thing about Obama is that he is not John McCain.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 6:05 PM

mary

Sorry about the typo, meant to say, me too. I have been having problems all day with my computer. I also wanted to say that there is essentially no difference between Obama and Bush and that i didn’t expect any change in US policies in the middle east, despite Obama’s famous Cairo speech.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 6:11 PM

Shirin

“We still have landmines, of course (the US and the Chinese as well as clandestine revolutionaries love them)”

So does Israel, doesn’t it? And to the best of my knowledge the Israeli government is still refusing to provide anyone with maps of the land mines it placed in Southern Lebanon, so the occupation of Lebanon has continued to kill and maim children, farmers, and livestock long after it ended.

And while we are on the subject of the gift that keeps on killing, there is Israel’s (and the U.S.’s) passionate love affair with cluster bombs, isn’t there?

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 10:59 AM

editorsteve

As you can, I can go on and on about Israel’s failings and their toys, but frankly I’m not fond of Hamas, either. Sorry. If that’s a failing, I guess I fail. Yeah, they get by far the worst of it, and yeah they were the ones who got screwed in the first place. But in my opinion, putting civilians, especially children, in danger IS NEVER JUSTIFIED with maybe one exception: That they are about to set off a bomb next to you. and I’m not even sure about that. YOU don’t have to be there, and they have the minds of… children.

I’m simply a moral absolutist on that.

I also think it is bad political strategy.

I do not think such an opinion rises to the level of an “apology” for Israel. Especially not when I have pointed out that Israel kills 100 civilians for every one Hamas gets.

But as far as I know, that’s the difference between us.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 11:30 AM

Shirin

Steve, I have never voiced anything but disapproval for Hamas’ attacks on civilian targets, so you are barking up the wrong tree if you are suggesting that I have. I consider attacks on civilians, their homes, their businesses, or their infrastructure to be indefensible under any circumstances. That should go without saying.

But to accuse Hamas of “hiding behind civilians” because they live in their homes with their families rather than setting up obvious “terrorist bases” out in the middle of nowhere (with signs visible from the air saying “terrorist base, drop bombs here?), and fight from their neighborhoods and cities when Israel attacks and invades their neighborhoods and cities is pure hasbara, and devoid of any meaningful logic. Unless, of course, you are willing to say that the Israeli military is hiding behind civilians when they allow soldiers to live with their families when not on duty, and, worse yet, station on-duty soldiers and keep weapons inside civilian areas, which of course they do all the time. And can I assume that if Arab hordes were to invade Tel Aviv (as Israeli hordes have regularly invaded Gaza City, for example) you would expect the Israeli military to immediately pull all its soldiers out of Tel Aviv and force them to defend the city from a base fifty kilometers away? And can I assume that if the Israeli military insisted unreasonably on having its soldiers defend Tel Aviv from the invading hordes from inside Tel Aviv, you would repeatedly state that they are “hiding behind civilians”? In that case I would have to concede that you were indeed unbiased.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 11:50 AM

Shirin

PS When invading Israeli soldiers forcibly take over the top floor of a family’s home, forcing the family to stay in a small area downstairs for days or weeks at a time without leaving the house at all, what are they doing if not hiding behind civilians? And how can anyone who can think rationally possibly equate something like that with a member of Hamas living in his own home with his own family, or for that matter using arms to defend his own home or his own neighborhood from invading Israeli soldiers?

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 11:56 AM

editorsteve

Shirin, what are you talking about? Don’t put words or ideas in my mouth.

Armed soldiers, even as guards or off-duty, are legitimate targets under international law as long as your targeting method doesn’t blow up the civilians as well. You are not supposed to blow up a schoolbus full of kids to get the guard inside. If not armed, especially in civilian clothes, soldiers are not legit targets.

And I decried the Israeli idea of targeting apartment blocks to kill one legit target. It’s illegal and immoral. The Israelis say that terorists (and they don’t use that term for those who target soldiers) are legit targets because killing civilians is illegal under Israeli and international law…. but international law also says you are supposed to try to capture criminals, not kill them. Otherwise, the attacker is also judge and jury.

I point out that in Bosnia, people did indeed live apart from families to protect them, and you seem to imply that’s impossible in Palestine.

I say that (obviously) fighting from one’s home makes the home a legit target under international law and you say what if the homes are Israeli? Still a violation, obviously. I never implied it would not be.

In warfare, this happens all the time, of course, and the non-combatants usually choose to become refugees if they can. Goldstone argues with some force that this isn’t easy in a crowded place like Gaza, and that the IDF should have done more to anticipate and to receive refugees, and that the civilians didn’t “volunteer” to stay put to get shelled and shot at in ANY of the incidents his team investigated.

Under international law, invaders can take over the enemy’s structures (heck, I just did a TV shoot at Old North Church in Boston, and the British were billeted around it as occupiers from 1770 to 1775) but as Goldstone pointed out, the invaders are not allowed to force the existing civilian inhabitants to stay there!

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 12:50 PM

mary

You slipped, Steve Ooooh, boy have you slipped.

Hamas are not children and should never be underestimated or mistaken as such. To say as much is condescending crap so reminiscent of Israeli propaganda.

Your whole bomb scenario smacks of hasbara.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 3:28 PM

Shirin

“ in my opinion, putting civilians, especially children, in danger IS NEVER JUSTIFIED”

You have appeared to argue repeatedly that if Israelis attack and invade a Palestinian city, as the did in Gaza, 2008-9, if Palestinians mount an armed defence, then the Palestinian fighters are endangering Palestinian civilians. Do I have that right, and if I do not, then what exactly ARE you arguing?

As for your apparent characterization of Palestinians as having the minds of children – well, what more can anyone say? That pretty much says it all.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 4:47 PM

mary

Yes and the US refuses to join the worldwide effort to ban cluster bombs. As does Israel, I believe.

Sister, you are absolutely correct in saying that Israel refuses to provide any information on where land mines were planted in Lebanon. But of course, this is not surprising. These people are hardly the champions of compassion or human rights for Arabs.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 1:16 PM

Shirin

Steve, not that I need to prove anything to you, but your assumption that I “don’t get out much” is both condescending and incorrect. I don’t need to provide you with my CV on regarding to Zionism, Palestine, and Israel. I know what it is, and so do many people who have worked with me over the years, including an old friend who defied his family and renounced Zionism as a result of conversations we had (as you might imagine the consequences were very severe for him).

If you do not want to give the impression that you are biased in favour of Israel, then perhaps you might want to stop repeating standard hasbara phrases we are all familiar with, and examine your language for what sounds very much like Israel apologetics.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 10:41 AM

Shirin

That does not mean we should be so grateful that we accept his pretence of being unbiased and even-handed when he so clearly is not.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 11:41 PM

Shirin

Exactly, Mary. And there is also his insistence upon presenting both sides as equal combatants whose offences and responsibilities are equal as if we are talking about a war between two parties of more or less equal strength and authority, and not a wealthy, militarily powerful state against an impoverished, oppressed occupied population.

And there is also his use of standard hasbara terms and phrases that are lifted intact and word for word out of some talking points memo, and are intended to prejudice the reader either for Israel or against the Palestinians or both. He has used on of them twice now on this page. It’s fairly easy to miss them in the big picture, which is the intent. They are supposed to plant ideas in the readers’ minds without them realizing it. If you’re not looking for these things you can go right past them.

I’m not saying he does any of these things intentionally, but they certainly tell you where he stands, and he is not as even handed as he would like people to believe, or perhaps as he believes himself to be.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 11:50 AM

mary

Then he would also be correct, because what possible use could the report be otherwise, other than to increase the world’s awareness? A full accounting of the events needs to be made in a public forum, and a permanent record made as well. And it is high time that government officials who were involved in any alleged violations of law be held to account.

I don’t always agree w. Steve but on the issue of war crimes I do. On some issues in the past he has taken a knee jerk pro Israel line. But I don’t find that that’s the case regarding Gaza & possible Israeli (& Hamas) war crimes.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 1:00 AM

Shirin

White phosphorus is not allowed for use against personnel.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 2:44 AM

Shirin

“IDF and the US and Russians, etc always seem to find their own bullshit loopholes.”

They don’t find loopholes, they simply lie. The first lie is always an indignant denial. Then when that lie is exposed, they shift their stories again and again. Ultimately they usually promise to investigate themselves for war crimes, and we all know where that leads.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 2:47 AM

Shirin

“No one has the time to correct all your mistakes.”

All what mistakes? So far you have not managed to even mention, let alone correct, a single one.

“It’s allowed against military targets and for use as a smoke screen.”

It is allowed for illumination, or as a smokescreen depending on the light conditions. Its use against personnel, including military personnel, is explicitly not allowed.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 7:49 PM

editorsteve

Don’t be condescending. I read it. I’ve also seen many interviews with Goldstone discussing it.

It has been argued that use of white phosphorus as a smokescreen even in civilian areas is not a violation because that is is not as a “weapon” and thus comes under the chemical convention (where it is not listed). I don’t agree with that argument (as I said in the earlier comment) because the stuff is just as nasty in a cloud as when aimed directly at you. But the argument exists, so you cannot say flatly that it is an unequivocal violation.

This is not sophistry on my part. I’ve been covering these matters for 40 years — long enough to know that loopholes — this vagueness on use — tend to be deliberate.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 7:27 PM

mary

Steve, it is a violation to use white phosphorus in civilian areas, even if it is not used as a weapon. That is because the stuff is so damned dangerous.

Israel is not a party to Protocol 3 of the Convention covering the use of phosphorus as a weapon. However, its careless use of white phosphorus as an illuminating agent in civilian areas still is a violation:

“The Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas, but there is no blanket ban under international law on its use as a smokescreen or for illumination. However, Charles Heyman, a military expert and former major in the British Army, said: “If white phosphorus was deliberately fired at a crowd of people someone would end up in The Hague. White phosphorus is also a terror weapon. The descending blobs of phosphorus will burn when in contact with skin.” “

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 9, 2010 7:59 PM

Shirin

Mary, FYI:

“It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.” The US Army Battle Book – Field Manual 100-3, Section III (Fire Support) paragraph section 5-11 para b subpara iii.

In other words, contrary to Steve’s assertion otherwise it is a violation of the law of land warfare to use white phosphorus as a weapon against people, period. Its use is not allowed against combatants, and certainly not against civilians. Its only clearly legal use is as either an illuminant (at night) or a smokescreen (during daylight). It is not possible to use it in civilian areas in such a way as to avoid seriously harming civilians, therefore it should never be used there or any purpose in that context.

It should be banned altogether, of course, and never used for any purpose at all in warfare.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 10:17 AM

mary

I agree, Shirin, however, if you will look at my comment it refers to Protocol 3. The loophole Steve is referring to may very well be the fact that Israel is not a party to Protocol 3.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 10:30 AM

Shirin

Yes, Mary, I am aware that you were addressing a different aspect of white phosphorus use. It’s just that I was very troubled by Steve’s insistence that it is legal to use it as a weapon against military personnel when it is, even according to the U.S. military, expressly not permitted. I thought a specific citation might be useful at some point in this or a subsequent discussion.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 10:48 AM

mary

You are correct again, unless he can show something saying it is OK to use white phosphorus against military targets. It is allowable only for use as smokescreen, etc, and not as a weapon. It is forbidden to be used for any purpose in civilian areas because it is dangerous. I know there is something in the law on it, and I hope to be able to find it.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 10:54 AM

Shirin

I don’t think he will find anything that expressly permits the use of WP against human targets of any kind, though admittedly there are some references that are vague and do not explicitly prohibit it. Those do not stand up, however, against official references such as the one I provided that DO explicitly prohibit it. One such explicit reference is enough.

WP use as a weapon against both combatant and civilian personnel has been documented by a very diverse lot of war criminals including Saddam Hussayn, the Taliban, the Nazis, and various U.S., British, and Israeli administrations.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 11:10 AM

David Samel

As I recall, Defense Minister Ehud Barak issued the first Israeli public statement on this incident, telling Ban Ki-Moon that it was a “grave mistake.” Olmert and perhaps Livni as well then contradicted Barak, saying it was no mistake at all, but return fire directed at militants in or around the compound. About one week earlier, a similar incident occurred, when Israelis killed about 40 civilians in the vicinity of a school being used as a UN shelter. Israel’s fib du jour then was that three terrorists were firing at Israel from within the school grounds, and the IDF counter-attack had killed the evil men but unfortunately killed civilians as well. It turns out that no shells struck school grounds – the dead were all killed on the streets outside the school. Eventually, Israel quietly withdrew the claim. The Keystone Cops nature of these inconsistent excuses would usually embarrass a government, but the initial claims succeed in convincing those who are willing to be convinced of Israel’s purity of arms.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 10, 2010 11:18 AM

mary

And then after they’re pronounced as war crimes, then what will hasbarists say? Other than the Court was biased against Israel?

The discussion still does not recognize the fact that the Israelis are the oppressor and the Palestinians are the victims, the occupied. This is where Steve makes his mistake. He is arguing as though the IDF and Hamas are two equal military bodies in a conventional war. Because they are not, this makes Israel’s actions all the more unconscionable.

“Hiding among civilians” – how interesting that you bring that up since you yourself have dragged out that precise hasbara phrase on more than one occasion – as if it even had any validity.

Where is the logic in saying that combatants who are defending their homes, neighborhoods, cities, and villages from attackers are hiding behind civilians because they mount their defence from the homes, neighborhoods, cities, and villages they are defending? What would you have them do, set up bases in the middle of nowhere (preferably with large targets painted around them, one supposes)? Not a very effective way of defending one’s home or city, but at least they would put to rest that silly bit of nonsense about hiding behind civilians, I guess.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 11:19 AM

editorsteve

Shirin, that’s not logical. If they FIGHT from among civilians they are not protected by international law! The civilians are then endangered.

But in the past I’ve been more interested in decrying the Israeli practice of taking out a housing block because a terrorist (specifically terrorist, supposedly; not a soldier in general, but I can point to at least one exception) happens to live there — not an issue specific to Gaza.

During the Bosnian war, combatants who were on the other side’s hit list did indeed tend to live in hiding “in the middle of nowhere,” apart from their families and other civilians. That was true of Bosnians, Serbs, and Albanians, even though it was the Serbs that had 90% of the weaponry.

You can (and will) argue that having 10% of the weaponry is still more than the Palestinians have, and that it is easier to live off the land in forested Bosnia (where most of the fighting took place). I can argue that after a few years of war and 15 years of stasis, the lands of the former Yugoslavia are basically at peace and all sides are busy prosecuting most of the bad guys.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 11:46 AM

mary

Steve, you don’t get it. Where the hell else would they fight from, especially in Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated places on earth?

There are no terrorists in Gaza, at least not those fighting for their homes and their lives. Even the rocket fire into southern Israel is debatable as to whether or not it is terrorism, which personally I feel it is not.

You should not be mixing Bosnia with Palestine, they are two completely different situations and are not comparable. Are the Bosnians under a four-year blockade? Are their lands being overtaken by religous zealots protected by the occupation’s government? I won’t even continue with that, but please, leave Bosnia out of the discussion.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 1:03 PM

Shirin

“Shirin, that’s not logical.”

No, it is YOUR position that is not logical, and is completely unrealistic.

“If they FIGHT from among civilians they are not protected by international law! The civilians are then endangered.”

What utter rubbish. The civilians are endangered by those who are attacking them, not by those who are mounting a defence. By your logic, if a gang of rapist-murderers were trying to break into my home, in order to avoid endangering my family, I should either refrain from attempting to mount any defence at all of my home and family, or perhaps run a block away and “defend” them from there.

“But in the past I’ve been more interested in decrying the Israeli practice of taking out a housing block because a terrorist (specifically terrorist, supposedly; not a soldier in general, but I can point to at least one exception) happens to live there — not an issue specific to Gaza.”

That is a different matter completely.

“During the Bosnian war, combatants who were on the other side’s hit list did indeed tend to live in hiding “in the middle of nowhere,” apart from their families and other civilians. That was true of Bosnians, Serbs, and Albanians, even though it was the Serbs that had 90% of the weaponry.”

How virtuous of them, and how wicked those Palestinians are. Unfortunately, you simply cannot realistically equate a war of relatively short duration with a 40-plus year very brutal occupation during which the occupied are confined in what has been described as an open-air prison, and during most of which everyone’s movement has been severely restricted by the occupiers. Nor are the terrains or the amount of available space even remotely comparable, so try again.

“You can (and will) argue that having 10% of the weaponry is still more than the Palestinians have, and that it is easier to live off the land in forested Bosnia (where most of the fighting took place). I can argue that after a few years of war and 15 years of stasis, the lands of the former Yugoslavia are basically at peace and all sides are busy prosecuting most of the bad guys.”

What I will, and have argued is that you are attempting to draw an analogy where there is none.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 3:39 PM

mary

The murderous IDF dropped leaflets saying bombing was imminent, and for the citizens of Gaza to flee. But to where? Israel and Egypt closed the borders. Fish in a barrel.

It is easy to claim Hamas hid behind civilians, when the civilians had no place to flee to, and Gaza’s dense population precluded any conventional warfare from taking place. This is not terrorism except on the part of Israel. And I beg to differ, Steve. Israel calls all resistance terrorism, whether it is directed at the IDF or elsewhere.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 1:30 PM

editorsteve

Exactly what I said… refugees had no place to go.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 1:39 PM

Shirin

Oh, please! I have not put anything into your mouth. You have repeated a number of times the standard hasbara rubbish about Palestinian resistance fighters (aka terrorists) “hiding behind civilians” – a charge that has not been substantiated, while on the contrary we have abundant documentation that it is Israelis who regularly hide behind civilians – Palestinian civilians, often children, who are forced at gunpoint to act as human shields for the brave members of The Most Moral Army in the World™. “Armed soldiers, even as guards or off-duty, are legitimate targets under international law as long as your targeting method doesn’t blow up the civilians as well.” I did not ask you to instruct me in international law. I know all that. And you are, of course, evading my question. If Hamas members, armed or unarmed, on duty or not, living in their homes in their cities, towns, and villages and going about their daily business, or defending their cities against attack are “hiding behind civilians”, then are not armed Israeli soldiers who are on duty in Israeli cities and towns also “hiding behind civilians”? Please stop lecturing me on things I already know, and answer the question. “You are not supposed to blow up a schoolbus full of kids to get the guard inside. If not armed, especially in civilian clothes, soldiers are not legit targets.” Whom do you think you are addressing? Do you think I don’t know these things? Please stop instructing me in the obvious, and address my question. “And I decried the Israeli idea of targeting apartment blocks to kill one legit target. It’s illegal and immoral.” I never said you did not. But I am not as sure that you would not say that “legit target” was hiding behind civilians by sleeping in his own bed in his own apartment. And by the way, I find it interesting that you refer to the target of the bombing as a “legit target”. It seems you do not have any legal or moral problem with assassination of an unarmed, sleeping human being? I guess this is one place we disagree. The word for it is murder, and it is certainly a violation of the law. “The Israelis say that terorists …are legit targets because killing civilians is illegal under Israeli and international law…. ” The Israelis will say absolutely anything, no matter how ludicrous or indefensible, to try to legitimize their crimes. If that is true, then Israeli soldiers who kill civilians, commanders and politicians who order attacks that kill civilians, and armed colonists who kill Palestinian civilians are also legit targets, would you not agree? “(and they don’t use that term for those who target soldiers)” What imaginary world do YOU inhabit?! That is demonstrably and outrageously false. They use the term terrorist for anyone and everyone who resists the occupation, including some who resist non-violently. In fact, they often use the term for anyone they happen to dislike. The only people who throw the term terrorist around as promiscuously as Israelis do are Americans. “but international law also says you are supposed to try to capture criminals, not kill them. Otherwise, the attacker is also judge and jury.” Again, evading the question and substituting instruction in international law. Oh, and international law trumps Israeli self-justifying bull**** every time. So called “targeted assassinations” are murder, pure and simple. Now, please address my question. “I point out that in Bosnia, people did indeed live apart from families to protect them, and you seem to imply that’s impossible in Palestine.” Oh, come on! The two situations… Read more »

Steve, I have copied and pasted directly from your own comments, so I do not see how I can have misquoted you. If I have misinterpreted things you said, or misunderstood your points, I assure you it was not deliberate. I do not engage in dishonest argument practices, and I dislike intensely when others do so. I would appreciate it in that case if you would try to set me straight, at least on one or two key points that I have misinterpreted.

As for me, I cannot help wondering why you have completely avoided answering my questions, which seem to me to be mostly quite clear and straighforward.

If Palestinian resistance fighters are hiding behind civilians by living, armed or unarmed in their own cities, towns, or villages, then when Israeli soldiers are armed and on duty inside Israeli cities are they or are they not hiding behind civilians?

When Israeli soldiers take over the top floors of a Palestinian home, and force the family to remain in the home, are they or are they not hiding behind civilians?

If Tel Aviv were attacked, civilians were unable to flee the city, and Israeli soldiers mounted an armed defence from locations inside the city, would they be endangering the civilians, and if so how should they respond to an attack so as not to endanger the civilians? Should they refrain from defending the city and the human beings inside it, should they leave the city and try to defend from some distant location? What is the correct course of action in this case?

I would appreciate a direct answer to at least one of these questions.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 4:29 PM

editorsteve

Aside from all the misquotes and stuff taken out of context (a partial list of which I sent to Richard directly) I answered directly every one of those questions, although none were particularly relevant to what I said in the first place! But to be clear and to answer at greater length:

If Palestinian resistance fighters are hiding behind civilians by living, armed or unarmed in their own cities, towns, or villages, then when Israeli soldiers are armed and on duty inside Israeli cities are they or are they not hiding behind civilians?

If they are not fighting and not in uniform, they can be where they want. As I mentioned in other posts, Israel (and virtually all other countries on Earth) considers a bomber or someone involved in bombing civilians — an explosive vest manufacturer, for instance — as a criminal and thus the rules are different — criminals living among civilians can be arrested (obviously). As I noted in an earlier post, the idea that you can destroy an apartment block or even an apartment to get at the criminal is wrong. I also noted that automatic killing sets up the “arresting officers” as judge and jury. Not good.

Along those same lines, few argue that kidnapping a soldier from within Israel’s claimed territory is wrong (as Hamas and Hezbollah have done). But refusing Red Cross visits is a violation, as noted by Goldstone.

When Israeli soldiers take over the top floors of a Palestinian home, and force the family to remain in the home, are they or are they not hiding behind civilians?

Of course they are, and as Goldstone noted, it is a violation.

If Tel Aviv were attacked, civilians were unable to flee the city, and Israeli soldiers mounted an armed defence from locations inside the city, would they be endangering the civilians, and if so how should they respond to an attack so as not to endanger the civilians? Should they refrain from defending the city and the human beings inside it, should they leave the city and try to defend from some distant location? What is the correct course of action in this case?

Whatever the defenders do is their choice.l But as I have noted previously, if the defenders threaten the attackers, the attackers can attack (only with proportionate force) even if there are civilians there. I also noted that it is difficult in a place like Gaza for civilians to flee the fighting and that it was IDF’s responsibility to accommodate such flight.

None of this is my opinion or my idea of what is precisely morally correct. It flows from international law. Sue me.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 11, 2010 8:17 PM

Shirin

“Aside from all the misquotes and stuff taken out of context…” Steve, you keep accusing me of misquoting you, yet you have not produced a single example of a misquote, despite the fact that I have repeatedly shown my openness to being told where I have erred. I also have to tell you that there is simply no way on earth that I can have misquoted you because everything I quoted from you was copied directly from your own comments, and pasted directly into mine without changing so much as a letter. So, your repeated accusations that I have misquoted you are simply false. Now, as I have said at least twice before, if I have misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misrepresented in some way what you have said, then I am happy to have you set me straight. I dislike basing entire arguments on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation. It does not lead to good communication, and in the end it is a waste of time for both parties. “(a partial list of which I sent to Richard directly)” What on earth was the point of that? We are both adults, presumably. If you believe I have been unfair to you, then it makes sense to take it up with me directly, doesn’t it, particularly since I have asked you repeatedly to show me where I have misquoted, or misinterpreted your meaning. Isn’t it just a tad childish of you to run to daddy Richard with this, and what in the world do you think he will do about it in any case? Am I supposed to be afraid now, or what? Do you think he will speak harshly to me, and if he does do you really think it will put holes in my world? Honestly, Steve, can we not behave like grown ups over this? “I answered directly every one of those questions…” No, you did not. You did not provide a single answer to a single one of my questions. What you did was obfuscate in each and every case. You didn’t remotely address the substance of a single one of my questions. If you didn’t want to answer them, you had the option to either ignore them altogether, or state that you were not interested in answering them. Obfuscation was certainly not your best choice in this case, since I am not so easily led off the track, or confused into believing I have received an answer when I clearly have not. “although none were particularly relevant to what I said in the first place!” They were relevant as far as I am concerned. “But to be clear and to answer at greater length:” In other words, to obfuscate even more… For heaven’s sake, two of the questions I asked require nothing more than a simple yes or no, not even more obfuscation. Shirin “If Palestinian resistance fighters are hiding behind civilians by living, armed or unarmed in their own cities, towns, or villages, then when Israeli soldiers are armed and on duty inside Israeli cities are they or are they not hiding behind civilians?” Steve, this is a clear yes or no question. One or the other is all that is required. Steve “If they are not fighting and not in uniform, they can be where they want.” This is nothing but obfuscation, and does not even remotely address the question. I did not ask where they could be, I asked whether they are hiding behind civilians when they are armed and on duty inside Israeli cities. A direct answer would be yes, or it would be… Read more »

Now I undertand why Phil Weiss doesn’t read his comment threads (or at least didn’t the last he told me). I feel very uncomfortable here on both sides of this argument. All I can say is that I have had my differences w Steve in the past & fr. what I read of the beginning of this thread (& I said as much here) it seemed to me that I found much more to agree w. in Steve’s comments than I had in the past. But to tell the truth I have not followed the rest of the discussion. Perhaps I should have, but I haven’t. All I can plead is that I’m trying to prepare both blog posts & new material for publication at Al Jazeera.net, not to mention deal with joy, frustration & the child-rearing issues of being a stay at home dad.

I’m not here to referee nor to defend one side or the other. I’m not here to tell Shirin she’s been a bad girl or that Steve has been a hasbarist.

Perhaps we should call a truce to this debate and begin anew in a diff. thread.

One thing I’d like to add is that I use disparaging terms like hasbarist and others freely when I think they’re warranted. But I do think there are commenters here who we may disagree with at times, but who are not in the same class as other right wing pro-Israel commenters. I think that each commenter we engage, even in disagreement should be responded to on their own terms & not based on a set of prejudged ideas we may have about a general class of pro-Israel trolls or whatever.

Once again, I have disagreed (& strongly) w. STeve in the past & I don’t want to make any judgment about the thread conducted here. But generally I think Steve is a serious reader who, even in disagreement, deserves to be addressed w. respect. There are readers & commenters here who when they argue or leave the boards I say, Good riddance. But I only want that to happen to people who are truly the lowest of the low. I’d like us to recognize there are those who disagree w. us who we may think are totally in the wrong, but we can acknowledge that they are at least sincere in their beliefs & that their beliefs encompass the humanity of both sides; & that these commenters are not merely out to score propaganda pts as so many are.

That being said, I understand the passions here & that lives are at stake & it makes us angry when we feel ideas & arguments belittle the humanity of Palestinians. So I am not at all denying the validity of those emotions & arguments either.

I am truly sorry if anyone feels this comment has let them down or angered them for insufficiently appreciating their perspective. I truly want disagreement & debate in the threads & understand the need for passion & even anger. But I would like there to be humanity as well. Pls. reply to this here or e mail me privately if you’d prefer to follow up.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 12, 2010 1:05 AM

mary

I think what we are trying to do here is to crash through the veneer of the usual arguments and understand each other on a more significant level. Part of that process may involve pointing out what we may perceive as obfuscation or evasiveness, even hidden prejudices, on the part of our opponents in the discussion. In other words, as intelligent people we struggle to open our minds and open the minds of others; otherwise, what is the point of discussion?

I think this has been a wonderful thread with intelligent people participating in some spirited debate, and there is no need, in my opinion, to end it. I think Steve had many valuable things to say, as did Shirin, but it is obvious that he has been affected by his own background in that he may have subconsciously absorbed a few anti-Palestine attitudes. That is why we were needling him a bit on some points. I don’t think we were rude or abusive, although we may have been blunt. As you know, Richard, you do occasionally get some quite annoying people leaving quite pointlessly abusive comments from time to time.

What your blog does, and what I hope to see more of on other blogs as well, is give people an opportunity to have political discussions, and this is an opportunity that had been lost for many years due to television’s imposition of passivity on the world. We are becoming thinkers and communicators again; a lost art is returning to our society, alhamdulillah, and as such, we are finding ourselves having to re-learn how to argue respectfully and with open minds. (I stopped leaving comments on digg.com because the level of discourse is so incredibly low that it many times consists of nothing more than profanity and the exchange of insults. This is only one example of the diverse quality of conversational opportunities available on the internets) Your comment rules are a good guideline to keeping the discussion on a civil and adult level; inshaAllah, someday we will not need guidelines but will have re-learned the skill of intelligent, civil conversation.

I don’t think it was necessary for Steve to have gotten so upset. He could have risen to the challenge, or chosen to leave the thread. If you’re invited to step outside your comfort zone, go there; you may find it to be an interesting and challenging journey.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 12, 2010 9:10 AM

mary

Shirin is merely trying to get clear answers from you, Steve – why are you fudging and obfuscating yourself into a corner?

“As I mentioned in other posts, Israel (and virtually all other countries on Earth) considers a bomber or someone involved in bombing civilians — an explosive vest manufacturer, for instance — as a criminal and thus the rules are different — criminals living among civilians can be arrested (obviously).”

Where in this thread were we talking about suicide bombers? We are discussing military conflict, invasion and defense. This is nothing more than an evasive statement meant to distract and move the discourse into an unrelated direction.

“Whatever the defenders do is their choice.l But as I have noted previously, if the defenders threaten the attackers, the attackers can attack (only with proportionate force) even if there are civilians there. I also noted that it is difficult in a place like Gaza for civilians to flee the fighting and that it was IDF’s responsibility to accommodate such flight.”

For the sake of clarity, do the defenders become attackers when they defend themselves? And by doing so, international law kicks in and they are accused of hiding among civilians the moment they mount a defense? And Steve, you know as well as the rest of us that it is IMPOSSIBLE, not “difficult,” to flee Gaza when it is under attack, thus all civilians are inherently at risk, and thus it may seem to make the Israelis war criminals by unnecessarily endangering civilians and failing to provide measures for their safety, regardless of how many warning leaflets they dropped or how many calls to cell phones they made.

“Along those same lines, few argue that kidnapping a soldier from within Israel’s claimed territory is wrong (as Hamas and Hezbollah have done). But refusing Red Cross visits is a violation, as noted by Goldstone.”

Hasbara lingo – you gave yourself away. Gilad Shalit was captured, not kidnapped. He was captured while on duty as a soldier at a military checkpoint. Capture is part of the risk of being a soldier. By portraying him as a helpless victim, Israel gives itself license to retaliate (which it has done in the most barbaric, egregious and disproportionate manner imaginable) and removes itself from its responsibility to behave in a responsible way by handling it as a military matter.

“(a partial list of which I sent to Richard directly)”

What on earth is this? Do you think Richard does not read our comments, and do you think he must act as a parent when one commenter whines that he doesn’t like what is being said to him? If you are not enjoying the discussion, you are free to leave, of course. Richard has comment rules in place, and if they are violated, he lets us know. But he also appreciates and respects the various points of view expressed here, and we appreciate him for his willingness to allow us to express them. Shirin is a razor-sharp, intelligent lady, and the opportunity to converse with her is always welcomed by me, even when we occasionally disagree. One should not fear or shrink from opposing points of view; they are opportunities for learning.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 12, 2010 8:42 AM

rob

As an outsider, I’ve never seen this website at all, I was quite impressed with passion and attention to detail expressed by the participants. An issue that I did not notice was: Was Israel justified in launching the “Cast Lead” campaign? If the answer is “yes” then fair minded individuals can differ on whether or not particular actions of the IDF were moral, immoral, criminal or justified. If the answer is “no” then it would seem that all actions carried out by the IDF would be in the shadow of illegality. Perhaps I missed this part of the discussion, and if so I apologize. In any case, let me get this straight. Israel unilaterally withdraws from Gaza. It also removes families and communities against the will of the Israeli citizens who lived in those communities. The residents of Gaza then proceed to elect Hamas as the governing power in an open and (more or less) free election. The same Hamas whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel (as clearly stated in their founding documents and pronouncements). This elected Hamas regime then proceeds to carry out deliberate rocket attacks on southern Israel. Hmm, I guess the residents of Gaza got exactly what that asked for. They elected a “government” (really a “thugocracy”, but I’ll leave that for another posting) whose stated goal is the destruction Israel. What did they think was going to happen when the Hamas regime pursued the goal of destroying Israel. That Israel was just going to sit there and take it. In fact Israel did take for quite a long time. Eventually the rocket attacks become unbearable and the people of Israel demanded action by their government to stop the attacks. Thus was born “Cast Lead”.
These rocket attacks were/are pure terrorism. I cannot fathom a more pure form of terrorism. Hamas obviously did not believe it could militarily defeat Israel by launching rockets. The rocket attacks are meant to sow fear and terror into the civilian population. The rockets are for the most part “aimed” at large civilian areas (not hard given Israel small size). That is the definition of terrorism. Pursuit of a political end my means of violence in order to sow fear within an opposing civilian population. What Hamas thought to get out of this terror is beyond me. Except perhaps the exact response they eventually got; Cast Lead. If there was ever a sovereign nation more justified than Israel in carrying out a military operation I’m not aware of it. If one cannot agree with the justification of the Cast Lead operation then it is impossible to engage in any discussion about the specifics of the operation. Clearly if one feels that the entire operation was illegitimate then everything done by the IDF in Gaza was a “war crime”. On the other hand, if one feels that the operation was justified then yes, specific actions carried out by the IDF should be investigated if any legitimate allegation (and verifiable) of abuse was leveled.

First, (& I almost hate to be so direct) you’re a very stupid person who is also very ill-informed.

So many of the issues you raise are so unbelievably stale & have been discussed ad nauseam here in so many other places (& debunked as well) that I caution you to try to raise issues that haven’t already been beaten to death like a dead horse.

This site has no interest in fighting the propaganda wars on one side or the other so you can forget about the anti-Hamas propaganda. We’ve dealt with it. You’re welcome to find the 20 or more threads here which have dealt with the so-called Hamas charter, the Israeli withdrawal fr. Gaza & whatever else in on yr mind.

The dead give away of who you are & where you came from is the first line. They must tell you in Hasbara School to always open with a line that indicates you’re a newcomer to the site & express a certain minimal level of respect for the site before you enter into yr propaganda shpiel. You might report back to yr superior that the tactics don’t work when they’ve been repeated 40 or 50 times by others like you.

a “thugocracy”, but I’ll leave that for another posting

Actually, no you won’t. You won’t use that or any other similar term ever again here if you want to continue posting here. Read the comment rules. If you can’t be bothered to respect them then you won’t be respected either. I would no sooner allow you to call Hamas by that epithet than I would countenance someone calling the Israeli government by such a term.

If there was ever a sovereign nation more justified than Israel in carrying out a military operation I’m not aware of it.

That would be because you’re one of the more obtuse & least knowledgable commenters who has visited here in the recent past.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 13, 2010 9:46 PM

rob

Richard, please tone down the personal attacks. You don’t need to call me names or be insulting. Just so you understand where I’m coming from, I don’t have “superiors”. No one tells me what to say or what to think. I didn’t go to “Hasbara” school. Actually I studied mathematics. I’m sorry you have a hard time labeling Hamas as a “thugocracy”. If the term offends your sensibilities I’ll refrain from the use. It matters not, I know who they are. I have read the 1988 charter of Hamas. It calls for the removal of the “Zionist” regime and the establishment of an Islamic theocracy. There is no distortion, manipulation, or other agenda here. Read it yourself. I read the English as my Arabic is very poor. I’ll have to trust the translators. In any case they (Hamas) say what they mean and they do what they say. They advocate a radical Islamic theocracy where women are treated horribly. Where women are forced to wear hijabs (or other traditional garb) and are not allowed to participate in society. Where punishments are meted out with brutality according to religious law. Where Gays are treated horribly and subjected to terrible violence. No freedom of press and no freedom of expression. Hamas and their ideological ilk want all these things and have already imposed them in Gaza. These things they say clearly and without a scintilla of doubt. Yet you cannot bring yourself to see them for who they are. Compared to Hamas, Israel is a bright beacon of light. If you can’t see the moral chasm between Israel and her enemies then I feel sorry for you. All this is above and beyond what my original point was. You didn’t respond to me at all. In fact all you did was dismiss me as “one of the more obtuse & least knowledgable (sic) commenters (sic) who has visited here in the recent past.” I’m assuming from your post and that of Shirin’s that you do not feel Israel was justified. In fact Shirin states that Hamas respected the ceasefire more than Israel did. The upshot being that Israel provoked/wanted/pursued, whatever you want to call it, the confrontation. In fact Shirin says, “the long-planned massacre it called cast lead, continuing a pattern of deliberate provocation that goes back to the pre-state days.” Massacre? Really? I mean given the strength and capability of the IDF, not to mention its superior technology and weapons, this was one of the worst massacres in history. Given all that hardware, manpower, and according to Shirin, malice of forethought, Israel should have easily been able to kill at least a couple of hundred thousand innocent civilians. Yet this did not occur. I wonder why. The valiant defense mounted by the noble Hamas fighters? The great and moral intervention by the “international community”? Give me a break. There was no massacre because the IDF took extraordinary lengths to minimize the exposure of non-combatants. This despite the close fighting proximity, and the well documented use of non-combatants as human shields, etc. Israel could have, if it so desired, really conducted a massacre. It could have surrounded Gaza with artillery and tanks and simply flattened the whole place. Why put any IDF soldiers in harms way? Why not? Because the Israeli population would never allow such a thing. And the soldiers in the IDF would never carry out such a disgusting and despicable order. I would prefer to have the IDF’s legal arm take an issue by issue review of the Goldstone report. Meet it head on and deal with what is… Read more »

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 14, 2010 4:29 PM

mary

You come to this blog and choose this thread to rehash all the old issues that have already been discussed to death all over the internets, and for what purpose? Especially after it has been indicated quite clearly to you that this is not the thread for the subject you are attempting to introduce. It is a waste of time.

Your hasbarist nonsense is nothing but blah blah blah and you have no right to come here and state that there was no massacre in Gaza last year. I can give you plenty of evidence to the contrary but won’t bother. Suffice it to say that I know people who live there; I am quite certain that you do not.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 14, 2010 5:05 PM

rob

I read through the thread. You’re right there is little discussion of the justification for Israel to launch an offensive against Hamas in Gaza. The entire thread is beyond that issue. You clearly think that Israel was not justified and had no right to launch a military action. Accordingly all actions carried out in Gaza by the IDF are tainted.

So now it is just a matter of detail. The IDF is more guilty in action A and less guilty in action B. You can argue back and forth with editorSteve about the proper use of phosphorous explosives all you want. In the end it doesn’t matter. The verdict is already in. Israel was guilty of misconduct in the conflict not because of any specific actions done by the IDF. Israel was guilty because it defended itself. Now it is just a matter of detail.
I’m very interested in your use of the term “hasbarist” I’m assuming you know what the Hebrew word Hasbara means. How you and others have used it on this blog is entirely and purposely demagogic. One who advocates any pro Israel sentiment (or in the case of Steve, a more nuanced sentiment to the conflict) is immediately dismissed as a “hasbarist”. Good, put a label on it. Dismiss it. That way you don’t have to engage the person or the points being made.

Lastly Mary, I do have the right to come in here and say there was no massacre. There was no massacre. You clearly don’t know the meaning of the word. Repeating the accusation over and over doesn’t make it come true. Now, if you want to engage me on any specific case brought out in the Gladstone report I’d be happy to reply.

Israel was guilty of misconduct in the conflict not because of any specific actions done by the IDF. Israel was guilty because it defended itself.

That’s ridiculous. OF course the IDF was guilty of war crimes because of its specific actions in Gaza. And no, the issue is not that it was guilty of war crimes because it was defending Israel. If that was ALL it was doing then of course some type of response in Gaza (though not Cast Lead) MIGHT have been appropriate. But that’s not at all what was happening since Israel provoked the Qassam attacks that preceded the war.

How you and others have used it on this blog is entirely and purposely demagogic.

Goodness gracious, being called a demagogue BY a demagogue. How quaint. You’re prob. not deliberately a demagogue. I believe you sincerely believe the tripe you’re passing off here as gospel. So demagogue may not be quite right (nor is yr characterization of the term “hasbarist” as demagogic). But you’re clearly a propagandist & ignorant as s(&t about the subjects you pontificate about.

That way you don’t have to engage the person or the points being made.

Buddy, I’ve just torn yr arguments or “points” as you call ’em to shreds. I engaged what little substance there was to engage. You didn’t come out of it looking pretty.

There WAS a massacre. 1,100 civilian deaths (300 children) IS A MASSACRE.

You haven’t even read the Goldstone report so don’t even go there, buddy. You’ve read the canned summary the MFA or some other pro-Israel outfit provided you. But you didn’t read it & you know you didn’t.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 14, 2010 10:34 PM

mary

You completely miss my point. Whether Israel was justified in attacking Gaza is not the issue although you seem to be attempting to force a discussion here.

By the way, I stand by what I said, that you have no right to state there was no massacre in Gaza. 1,400 Palestinians, many of them children, died versus 13 Israelis. That is a massacre.

I didn’t go to “Hasbara” school. Actually I studied mathematics. You’re a bit clueless as one doesn’t go to Hasbara school unless getting a degree in international relations at an Israeli university is considered that. Even those studying mathematics can become excellent hasbarists. It’s not that calling Hamas by that term “offends my sensibilities.” It’s that the term is not only patently false, it constitutes propaganda, grandstanding & point-scoring and that is most definitely not what this blog is about. I don’t allow anti Israeli proganda & I don’t allow anti-Hamas propaganda. I allow reasoned discourse which finds fault w. one side or the other. But epithets & the like are a substitute for thinking & reasoning & grappling w. real issues. READ THIS CAREFULLY: when I tell you that you will not continue with a specific line of discussion, propaganda or argument that’s what you will do if you want to continue. You will not have a debate here about the Hamas charter. The entire issue is bogus. The charter has no standing, no meaning & no impact over anything that happens. Only hasbarists are obsessed w. it. So that would make you one. They advocate a radical Islamic theocracy where women are treated horribly. Where women are forced to wear hijabs (or other traditional garb) and are not allowed to participate in society… You’ve clearly never been to Gaza. If you had been you would know that this is a blatant falsehood. BTW, you cannot state falsehoods here. And if you make claims such as this you have to support them w. evidence. But you can’t support this one because it’s bogus. I may disagree w. Hamas in its treatment of women or religious minorities, but yr claim is a flat out lie (or else ignorant). Where punishments are meted out with brutality according to religious law. You’re confusing the Taliban w. Hamas. And once again you’re flat out wrong. Not even close. No freedom of press and no freedom of expression. This too is wrong. Again, these rights may not be what I would like them to be. But you’ve way overstated yr case & anyone who actually lives in Gaza would snigger at yr loony generalizations. Hamas and their ideological ilk want all these things and have already imposed them in Gaza. These things they say clearly and without a scintilla of doubt. No, you are the one who has not a scintilla of doubt since you’re a true believer. Since so much of what you write is pure unsubstantiated trash, your future comments will be moderated. Unless you can substantiate all future claims you make on similar subjects, further restrictions may be placed on yr privileges. The upshot being that Israel provoked/wanted/pursued, whatever you want to call it, the confrontation Of course it did. That’s generally conceded by most knowledgeable observers of the situation. Not the hasbarists of course. Israel should have easily been able to kill at least a couple of hundred thousand innocent civilians. Now, you’re heading into bizarro world. The fact that Israel killed ONLY 1,400 (1,100 of whom were unarmed civilians) means Israel was acting with restraint?????? And you can write w. a straight face (even facetiously) that Israel “should have easily been able to kill” a few hundred thousand Gazans???? Frankly, the more you write the stranger you seem. Yet this did not occur. I wonder why. Uh, maybe because Olmert & the entire IDF senior staff would be in the docket right now in the Hague?? Maybe that had a bit to do w. the slight level restraint used… Read more »

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 14, 2010 10:23 PM

Shirin

“..if there’s any of yr rhetoric I haven’t shredded, Shirin pls have a go at him.”

Even though I am still not feeling well, I’d be happy to, but for the most part I’d only be piggy-backing on what you have already said. But, you know, a long weekend is coming up, and I’ll have more energy to devote to it than I have during the week so if you want to pass through a few more of his comments, I might like having a little fun with him. Since I’m not up to batting around a tennis ball it might be pleasurable to bat around an out-of-his-depth hasbarist instead. Based on his complete lack of ability to response substantively to my first comment to him, though, the entertainment value might be limited.

PS His comments on Hamas are beyond ludicrous. I particularly love the part about Hamas forcing women to wear “hijabs” (sic) “or other traditional garb”. It was a nice try for a rank amateur, but there is so much wrong with that remark he might as well have started tossing around the words dhimmi and jihad since he had already neon-lighted himself.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 14, 2010 11:47 PM

mary

“Israel should have easily been able to kill at least a couple of hundred thousand innocent civilians.”

That one statement chilled my blood all the way to my bones. It just illustrates how the Palestinians are not recognized as human beings but are perceived either as subhumans, animals or some nebulous collective entity that many people found like to see mown down like a wheat field.

This same mindset fails to see that 1,400 deaths versus 13 (4 of which were by friendly fire) is horrifically disproportionate and should be rightly seen as a massacre. This mindset also refuses to acknowledge that there was very, very little ground combat and that most of the deaths were as a result of air attacks.

In my humble opinion, I would not only call this a massacre but also a form of terrorism. Dropping leaflets and making phone calls telling people to flee when they have no place to go is a form of terrorism as well.

So there are still hasbarists around pushing the same old rubbish even after Goldstone and the other reports. It figures. Still trying to stitch together Israel’s shredded reputation on the cheap. It’s time for something new; it’s time for Israel to own up to its actions. College kids with leaflets (and participating in essay contests on why the Jews have the right to take all of the West Bank and Jerusalem) aren’t going to get the job done anymore.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 15, 2010 8:15 AM

Shirin

You think you’re really smooth, don’t you, “rob”? That’s pretty amusing. In my day have seen, and debated, quite a few hasbarists, both professional and amateur, including some of the best, and you are overall well below average for an amateur. On a scale of 1-10 you rate about a 3 for smoothness – no, that’s not fair, you deserve a 4 since you at least tried. Before the end of the first sentence you were suspect, and shortly after that your purpose was 100% obvious, not to mention that your material is badly out of date, and your delivery is pure cut and paste. I’d say you need a lot more time on the ignorant right wing American blogs before you will be ready for a slightly more savvy crowd, and I am not sure you have the talent to ever be able to handle a group as sophisticated as this one. Keep working at it though. You never know what you can achieve until you try.

But the most telling thing is the fact that you were unable to give any response whatsoever to my substantive arguments on two of the main points you raised. The best you could muster was a rather lame Bush-ish “bring it on” with a note not to make it personal, when I had not done so, but had answered you with substance.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 14, 2010 11:15 PM

Shirin

“Was Israel justified in launching the “Cast Lead” campaign?”

Absolutely not. The planning for that attack began nearly a year before it was launched, and continued even as Israel was negotiating a very successful ceasefire, which Hamas honoured more than Israel did. If Israel had not blatantly and provocatively broken that ceasefire, it would almost certainly have been renewed for at least another six months, giving residents of Sderot and other southern areas an extension of the relief they had experienced since Summer. Israel instead chose to break the ceasefire, and create a provocation to create a pretext for the long-planned massacre it called “cast lead”, continuing a pattern of deliberate provocation that goes back to the pre-state days.

“If the answer is “yes” then fair minded individuals can differ on whether or not particular actions of the IDF were moral, immoral, criminal or justified.”

No they can’t. Even when military action is justified there are limits on what is moral, immoral, criminal, and justified, and Israel crossed all those limits big time.

While I would dearly LOVE to cut you to ribbons point by point, and do so with great passion and attention to detail, I see that Richard has dismissed you most appropriately, and I am tired and not feeling well, so I will resist the temptation, at least for now.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 13, 2010 10:16 PM

mary

It’s not worth bothering with, Shirin. I think Richard’s response was right on the money, and it is true that this person’s viewpoints are all dead horses. Besides, he covers too many hasbarist points to comfortably cut to ribbons in merely one conversation thread (although oh, yes, it’s tempting)

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

disable

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.